Sunday, July 31, 2005

The Elephant On The Table Starts Dancing

It’s a good rule of thumb that what politicians talk about most is what they’ll do least. So I wasn’t surprised when all that talk of ‘education, education, education’ turned out to be blather even by Blairian standards. After all, Nu Lab is so in hock to the teaching unions that meaningful change is probably a political impossibility. The only real question is why the Conservative Party has such a reluctance to point out Labour’s very obvious problems in this area.

In a result sure to shock absolutely no one, researchers have found that kids in faith schools do far better than those in the cultural Marxist wasteland of normal schools. More to the point, neatly torpedoing the usual Liberal whine that these schools are somehow cheating by filling their classes with young Einsteins, it turns out that the gap is greatest amongst kids at the bottom end of the scale. Needless to say, even the researchers – presumably anxious to work in education again – scramble to explain it all away, but that emphasises rather than obscures the basic point.

Here we have a group of schools the mere thought of which is enough to turn the average Liberal into a reasonable facsimile of Linda Blair in The Exorcist, yet – staggeringly enough – they consistently beat their peers. This is the perverse nature of Liberalism laid bare – they don’t spend their time explaining away failure, they spend it explaining away success. Faith schools are hated because they won’t throw the towel in, and come on down into the cess pit with the rest of the losers. Isn’t it time we started talking about the underperformers as the aberration ?

As long as the Labour Party remains a prisoner of Big Education, they’ll be forced to pretend to take seriously arguments that faith schools are somehow gobbling up all the educatycium ore, leaving none for other schools. There’s no reason at all why Conservatives should join them in the madhouse. Indeed, this is the perfect example of what the Conservatives should be doing. Labour has no room for manoeuvre in education - they can’t bring forward any meaningful reform that will hit the educrats, while the Conservatives have no support to lose amongst these people. A Conservative Party committed to genuine reform will literally have the debate all to itself, if only they find the courage to actually address this issue. If nothing else, they could at least come out against the absurd persecution of faith schools by the Left.

Why Liberals Must Lie

Laban is busy tracking the outrages of our Liberal Employment Service aka the Justice System. The latest outrage also includes a link to the latest dribblings of the web’s favourite judicial fascist. I mean, seriously, you could almost imagine that ‘bystander’ is actually a British version of Liberal Larry, if only this form of lunacy wasn’t all too familiar. Still, it does raise an interesting question.

Right about now, everyone knows that Conservatives are too extreme, too repellent, ever to gain power again, except which side of the political divide can state its policies on crime openly, and which needs to retreat between a smokescreen of blather ? To cite just one example, the Legal Aid budget has more zeros than the Shadow Cabinet, but Libs claim they don’t want to send scum to jail because it’s expensive. A-huh. Let’s work this one out: quarantining scum vs supplying bewigged vermin with their next Mercedes – it’s a toughey, but I think I’d rather see lawyers walking the streets rather than psychos. Und so weiter...

Liberal policy on crime is the very definition of the phrase ‘to state it clearly is to refute it’. Liberals maintain that actually they’re really, really tough on crime and, in fact, the only reason they support revolving-door justice, parole on-demand and the like is because they genuinely believe not jailing a criminal is actually much harsher than jailing one. Well, OK, we now have the perfect litmus test. Here we have yet another example of senseless savagery, let’s see if the Lib’s three-ring circus will be giving us a performance this time. Let’s see the newspaper columnists explaining that the media are hyping violence out of all proportion, the quangoqueens urging the Police to reach out to the community, the pious claims that the killers need understanding not condemnation.

No, wait...hang on – it’s a racial attack. The Liberal freak show can pack up and leave town. There will be no reaching out this time. That’s the part that sticks in the throat. Liberals constantly maintain that sentencing killers to five years in prison is ‘harsh but fair’, but when the deceased is a member of a PC victim group, they start sounding like Rory Bremner’s version of Michael Howard. If Liberals take racially-motivated murder seriously, then isn’t the corollary that they don’t take seriously most other murders ?

That’s the bottom line here. Liberals don’t flirt with vicious killers because they genuinely think probation is a worse punishment than hanging, they do it because it suits their agenda to stick two fingers up to traditional morality. Liberalism has been locked into a nihilistic death spiral for so long that its adherents lack any moral basis for evaluating any action other than whether or not it advances the cause of Liberalism. When true outrages happen, say a guy out walking his dog who getting beaten to death by a gang of thugs, the Liberal's natural response is an eye-rolling, sneering, detachment. To do otherwise would be to admit that Liberalism’s great experiment is a disaster, and that would never do. But when the victim can be recruited to the culture wars, why, all bets are off. That’s why we’ll hear a lot more about Anthony Walker and next to nothing about Michelle Wenden.

That’s what’s wrong with Liberal policy on law & order. These people have no conception of the law as the codification of the common morality. To them, the law is a means to bludgeon opponents, reward allies and push the Liberal agenda. Hence why Liberal jurisprudence is so commonly arbitrary and subjective. Of course, respect for the law is collapsing: there is no law, in so far as the concept means a settled body of legislation. Instead, we have a buffet counter of law from which Liberal judges pick and choose whichever interpretation best suits the Liberal agenda.

That’s what Conservatives should be saying: the alleged justice system is out of control, serving an agenda which the vast majority of people never voted for. Would this win over the support of the public ? Well, consider the lengths to which the Left goes to hide its true nature. They, at least, are under no illusions about who the real extremists are.

Stop Calling Us Violent Or We'll Kill You

The Beeb continues its attempts to find the political equivalent of the Loch Ness Monster: the vast rise of Islamophobia.

The number of attacks on Asians has risen significantly since the London bombings, police and Muslim groups say.
Note that: the Police are supporting this latest exercise in Islamovictimhood. Except they aren't. The only direct quote from the Bill is a boilerplate reference to the fact that, yes, they serve Asians as well as everyone else. In fact, the very next paragraph says this:

The number reported to the Islamic Human Rights Commission - not including those reported to police - has risen more than 13-fold, its chairman said.
So, that figure isn’t backed by the Police after all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Ditto, the other figure given, also supplied by a Muslim activist group. Guess ‘Islamic Extremists Complain About Islamophobia’ wouldn’t have made such a good headline. Of course, there’s an agenda here:
But the Muslim Safety Forum, which works closely with the police monitoring the total number of incidents reported, blames "prominent people within our society" and the media for saying all British Muslims share something in common with the bombers.
Y’know, kind of like an ideology ? No, that’s just crazy talk.
A spokesman told BBC News "bigots" now felt they had the "right to commit these atrocities".
Yes, indeed. Every Nazi skinhead I’ve ever met hangs on every word Mark Steyn writes. Guess the only safe way is not to allow any criticism of Islam at all.

Of course, the sting in the tail is coming

The 7 July bombings were "a single criminal act" and all British Muslims could not be held responsible, he added.

British Muslims would not continue to allow themselves to be victimised and criminalised without a further "backlash" from them, the spokesman told BBC News.
So there! Nobody call Islamopaths violent, lest they go on the rampage. That ought to clear things up

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Sixteen Years Too Late To The Party

There has been no aspect of the Menezes case which sticks in the throat more than hearing Metropolitan intellectuals (mostly self-proclaimed) prancing round professing to be shocked by the thought of a Police screw-up causing the death of an innocent. Add in their outrage at the thought that the Police may have released misleading information in the aftermath and the humbuggery reaches mind-bending proportions.

We’ve done that. We did it sixteen years ago and these people’s response was perfectly summed up in their recent lionisation of BoJo for daringly sneering at the families’ grief. The same folks hitting the sackcloth & ashes extra-strength right now, were the ones who thought then – and still think – that Hillsborough was gigglesville, yet there’s not a single criteria by which last Thursday’s event wasn’t outdone by events in 1989.

No. of Deaths 196
Threat Police Thought They Were Facing: Suicide Bomber Football Fans
Police Misconduct ? Alleged Release Of False InformationAdmitted To Release Of False Information and
'Loss' of CCTV Footage and
Rewritting Witness Statements

Dedicated cop haters may regard both inicidents as examples of Police brutality. 'Angry of Tubridge Wells' might say they all deserved to die, but to maintain that one is an epic tragedy while the other is a bid for the a group Darwin Award, is surely an example of the sleazy, overtly tactical, parody of morality that no dominates a certain strand of Metropolitan thought. But no, we’re supposed to take these people seriously as principled guardians of public morality. Screw them all.

Quote Of The Day

So let me get this straight. They're moving Griffin's trail because, if he's found not guilty of calling Muslims violent, Muslims will ... um ... turn violent? (Or should that read violent-er?) Question: could Griffin use that as the chief plank of his defence argument?
The Rottweiler Puppy tears apart the argument that the BNP leader's trial has to be moved for reasons of public order.

Also Despicable

Judging from the way it’s bouncing around the blogosphere, this article appears to be becoming the definitive example of the weenies response to last week’s own goal, so let’s see what they’re actually saying:

THE POLICE, according to a Sunday newspaper yesterday, fear a “backlash in the Muslim community” after the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian electrician, at Stockwell Tube station on Friday. What the police should fear is a backlash from the entire civilised community.
So, if you disagree with him, you’re not civilised. No ego problem there. Of course, the disclaimer is all present and correct:

I am a hardliner on the War on Terror and remain a hawk on the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

Well, it’s better than ‘some of my best friends are pigs cops’. Still, you just know there’s a ‘but’ coming.

But if al-Qaeda has created an atmosphere in which an ordinary person can have five bullets pumped into him by the police, and society shrugs its shoulders, then the terrorists have already won a modest victory.
Some of us may think that it is not immediately obvious why any number of shootings in London should advance the cause of establishing a global Islamic state. Considering that it was a central tenet of the enemy’s war plans that the West was too decadent to take any form of decisive action, the ruthless destruction of a target matching the profile of a suicide bomber, will hardly please them.

Of course, an absurd argument needs an absurd comparison, and Timmy dutifully supplies it:

I don’t know about you, but if I found myself minding my own business on the São Paulo metro and was suddenly confronted by men wearing no uniforms but wielding weapons, screaming at me in Portuguese, I too might choose to bolt for it. It was not merely the police but their victim who had to make a split-second decision.
Except for the not inconsiderable point that the deceased was in London not Sao Paulo, and spoke perfect English. Other than that, it’s a perfect analogy. Anyway, there’s good evidence that the deceased was an illegal immigrant. He didn’t run because he didn’t know they were cops, he ran because he knew they were. No wonder the cops recognised a criminal taking to his heels rather than a ‘panicked civilian’.

Perhaps sensing that these arguments are kind of weak, Timmy comes up with the wartime equivalent of asking if the Police have stopped beating their wife.

There should be three consequences of this terrible tragedy. The first is that every aspect of the investigation that will be conducted by the Independent Police Complaints Commission should be published. There must not be the slightest possibility that the Metropolitan Police might be covering up its embarrassment by, for example, citing “operational reasons” why the decisions taken last Friday morning cannot be scrutinised.
Neat, n’est pas ? Security forces in time of war refuse to open up their files to all and sundry, so they must be guilty. And in a similar vein, I propose that if Tim Hames can’t account for his actions on every Tuesday since August of 1999, it proves he’s a child molester.

The second is that the shoot-to-kill policy has to be re-examined. There is a world of difference between a plainclothes policeman finding himself riding on the Tube and spotting a man with a large bag behaving in a manner that makes him a potential suicide bomber and shooting him, and chasing a person on to a train carriage and firing at him.
Like, OK. Police can’t fire if they’ve been informed that a guy has left a known terrorist haunt, is dressed like the Michelin man and when challenged runs straight to the nearest train, but cops can fire if they see a guy acting like a potential suicide bomber. Say, Timmy, you wouldn’t like to expand on that one ? How do potential suicide bombers act ? I mean, those of us what are not civilised might be thinking that they just chug along until it’s button time, then ka-blooey! Do they do a little dance or what ? Or should the cops just shoot anyone rummaging through their bag ? We deserve answers!

The final and most important aspect relates to Mr Menezes and his loved ones. This man was, in effect, as much a victim of the London bombs of July 7 as those who died then. It is inconceivable that he would have been killed by the police if those terrorist atrocities had not happened. His name should be included among those who will be supported by the fund that was set up to help those left behind after those murders. We must be honest about how his awful death took place and be ready to learn the lessons.
Yes, that’s the real lesson from all this: Britain is evil. Kind of like the lessons of every other incident that’s ever happened. Pity poor Timmy. There he is waving the flag for civilised warfare, fought by nice chaps with Oxbridge degrees and well-cut suits, and suddenly it turns out that the John Thaw character the public really want isn’t Inspector Morse, it’s Jack Regan. That’s what turned Timmy so screamey. Mass slaughter he can take, massive irrelevance, man, that’s just too much.

Tuesday, July 26, 2005


How exactly did the Lib Dems get a reputation for protecting civil liberties ? Sure, they support a hands-off approach when it comes to enforcing stuff they don't think should be illegal anyway, but where's the courage in that ? There are plenty of laws folks in the City think are stupid, does that necessarily make them civil libertarians ? Surely the test is whether a soi-dissant civil libertarian agrees with laws regulating things they don't agree with ? Put that way, the Lib Dems fail every time.

Take the latest shenanigans in Yorkshire. BNP Chief Loon Nick Griffin is on trial for 'incitement to racial hatred' in so far as he claimed Islam is a violent religion. Nevermind the category error, making a case against him was always going to be an uphill struggle. But now ? Somehow, I suspect the Government will have a hard time convincing anyone that claiming second-generation Islamic immigrants will attack public transport in London is evidence of extreme right-wing views, rather than an ability to add two and two. Hell, Griffin's predictions were a lot closer to the truth than anything which came out of the BBC.

So, what's Liberals Fascists to do ? Folks in Leeds may just remember that at the same time the CPS was trawling for insensitive words in Griffin's speeches, Islamic terrorists were operating freely in their city. Fortunatly, the Lib Dem's Greg Mulholland has the perfect answer: start jury shopping. He's suggested that the trial be moved to..... well, anywhere where the State will get a better chance at a result. Nevermind that this undermines the principles of local justice and a 'jury of peers' - two things which the civil lib freaks traditionally take out the onion for - there's just something basically sleazy about the idea of politicans manipulating the actions of the courts to try and affect the results of a trial. In fact, it occurs to me that this is a perfect barometer of what the Lib Dems support for civil liberties really means: absolutely nothing.

Sunday, July 24, 2005

Libs Come Out In Support Of Racial Profiling

I’ve finally worked out why Libs are so spineless. It’s the only way they can manage the constant backflips without serious injury. Take recent events: it’s supposed to be self-evidently ludicrous that the Filth misidentified a Brazilian as a suicide bomber. Hang on a mo’, if Brazilians are unlikely to self-explode, then who do the Libs think would detonate ? C’mon Libs, we want to know. After all, Libs have been insisting that eighty-year old grandmothers, Chinese schoolgirls and Rolf Harris are all just as likely to be suicide bombers as a twenty-something university educated male Muslim British passport holder who’s just spent 18 months in Pakistan. But a Brazilian suicide bomber ? That’s just crazy talk.

Let’s rewind the tape here. Liberals are shocked – shocked! – that a police officer made a bad call. That’s the problem with split second decisions. If there was the chance to weigh up the evidence in a more formal setting – say, some kind of tribunal – things might have been different, but no: the Left won’t have it. On the contrary, what we have is a situation where a guy can stride up to passport control at Heathrow and say ‘hi there, my role in multiple terrorist bombings in Zangaro has resulted in me facing a death sentence’ and he’d get asylum, precisely because of that. Simply facing a death sentence – irrespective of the grounds for it – is enough to gain asylum. Needless to say, the Left insists that our putative bomber can not be detained once in Britain. He gets the run of the country (plus full welfare benefits of course). The Left will generously permit the security services to monitor these scumbags, so all the Police really have to do is maintain 24/7 surveillance, naturally without being detected, right up until they catch one of the scuzballs climbing into a train with a cigarette lighter in one hand and a giant fuse in the other. What could go wrong ?

So much for the specific insanity, but you could also say the Left created the meta-context in which this screw-up occurred. The point is best made by Captain Ed:

The Geneva Conventions exist to prevent civilian authorities to make these kinds of choices. It forces nations engaged in warfare to clothe their soldiers in recognizable uniforms so that civilians do not face these deadly consequences. The death of Menezes shows the wisdom of summary executions of infiltrators, spies, and saboteurs during wartime in order to discourage their use. The use of deadly force on people in civilian life in part because of a poor choice of outerwear during a hot summer season directly relates to the kinds of attacks that al-Qaeda has conducted on civilian populations.

This kind of incident is the inevitable result of an enemy that deliberately tries to pass themselves off as civilians. Yet not only does the Left refuse to condemn this tactic, they positively condone it by campaigning to secure for the enemy all the rights of lawful combatants.

People haven’t been as unjustifiably shocked by a disaster since the FA appointed Graham Taylor to manage England. But having foisted this Alice In Wonderland system on us, the Left has decided that the real blame lies with the worker bees. If only the Police had….. well, something, anyway. Of course, the Left is a little vague on the details, but they’ll try and make up for it with volume.
The Rottweiller Puppy has sniffed out more humbuggery.

Friday, July 22, 2005

Bomber Shot, Liberals Explode

Well, at least we know what it takes to get Liberals outraged over acts as violence committed in the War on Terror. For once, Liberals have abandoned their ostentatious eye-rolling and found something that really burns them. Pity it’s the zapping of a Tango by the security forces.

All the folks who greeted news of mass slaughter with windy do-nothing blather have suddenly discovered a sense of outrage. True, the deceased was a known terrorist, dressed like the Michelin Man in July, and ran from Police when questioned, straight towards a crowded train, but one can hardly call this suspicious behaviour. No, Liberals are outraged at the thought of such an obviously harmless individual being shot murdered by Blair’s death squads. Some might say we should treat Liberal threat assessments with a degree of caution, considering that pre-July 7 they spent their time telling us that terrorism was a myth. The thing is that Liberal prophets are just like Kenny in South Park: every time they make a predication, they get squashed, but there they are next week, back again.

Some of us have been here before. In 1988 a group of IRA bombers were observed to be studying the Changing of The Guard ceremonies on Gibraltar. They were kept under surveillance right up until they parked a car right next to the site of the ceremony. As the terrorist were making their way to Spain, they realised they were under surveillance, the SAS moved in to make an arrest and in the subsequent chaos the terrorists were shot. Naturally, Liberals were delighted with the SAS saving hundreds of lives.

No, not really.

It turned out that the car was only a block car, meant to keep the space free for the real car bomb, so there was no risk of the terrorist being able to set off the bomb. SO THERE! Ever after, Libs were banging on about a ‘shoot-to-kill- policy and other examples of the buzzwords Libs use to hide the basic insanity of their ideas.

I can’t be the only one getting a strange feeling of déjà vu. This wouldn’t be so bad if we hadn’t had four years of Libs splashing around in the cesspit of LIHOP/MIHOP fantasising about September 11. In the great Liberal game of Three-Card Find-The-Lady, the Left always wins, either crowing over failures or moralsing over successes. Here’s a case where firm and direct action has prevented mass slaughter, but the Left is hopping mad. Can we just stop pretending that there’s any logic to their position other than hatred of Britain ?

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Repent! The End Is Nigh!

I’ve finally worked out who Tory modernisers remind me of. It’s the loonies with the sandwich boards wandering round the high street. Admittedly, a sort of anti-matter version, endlessly shouting ‘Repent thy morals or face damnation on the Day of Non-Judgementalsim’.

The latest example of this dismal bunch appears in the Times. All the usual talking points are present and correct, with the same old dreary nonsense being spouted, even down to that most clichéd of Liberal talking points: the evils of the Daily Mail:

My own view is that the Tories have to stop being angry about modern Britain. Too often their spokesmen sound like the Daily Mail, moaning about the breakdown of family life, social values or whatever is the whinge of the day.
This is how four year olds argue. Is this guy really saying that the family hasn’t been under attack for four decades? Or that many communities aren’t collapsing? No, he doesn’t even address these issues; he just tries to breeze past these questions with a highbrow sneer. Liberals don’t want to debate these issues, lest people notice the correlation between the growth of these social pathologies and the implementation of the Liberal agenda. They’d much rather try and throw you off the scent with stupid smears:

Britain no long consists only of stable white families, and never did, of course.
Let move on from the historical illiteracy necessary to believe the ‘nation of immigrants’ line, and just note that he’s calling us racists even while himself alluding to a racist stereotype, that of the absent black father. I won’t even mention the fact that the notoriously stable Indian and Chinese families are only rarely white, I’ll simply say this: virtually every study into the subject shows children do better with a stable family structure around them. If family breakdown was a product, you couldn’t get a licence to sell it, but now this guy thinks Conservatives should turn a blind eye to that for electoral gain. This from the guy who claims Tories are too opportunistic ?

Rather, the Tories should look back to what Margaret Thatcher (and Mr Blair), did so successfully: appeal to peoples’ aspirations and hopes. A positive message is always more effective than a negative one.
Say what ? Blair’s positive messages ? There has never been a PM who’s claimed to find his government opposed by so many dark conspiracies. In early 1997 you could have been forgiven for thinking Blair was standing against a Party called ‘Tory Sleaze’. This is the man who claimed there was ’24 hours to save the NHS’. Just look how many groups have been demonised at various times during Blair’s rule: farmers, truckers, hospital consultants, gun owners, the Police, the Armed Forces, the City, Jews…. If Blair caught a cold, it would be because of a vast conspiracy involving Kleenex, the pharmaceutical industry, the BMA and Melanie Phillips.

Leaving the whitewashing of Blair aside, there is an almost worthwhile point there: Conservatives should seek to articulate a positive vision. Yes, they should - after all, to quote Lady Thatcher:

Conservatives have excellent credentials to speak about human rights. By our efforts, and with precious little help from self-styled liberals, we were largely responsible for securing liberty for a substantial share of the world's population and defending it for most of the rest.
Liberals keep banging on about the Utopias they could create, we don’t need to do that: we have reality. Yet, the very fact that the distinction between the effects of Conservatism and Liberalism is so huge mandates us to speak out about what we believe.

Conservatives are too angry ? No, Conservatives aren’t nearly angry enough. Look at crime. Ordinary, decent citizens are going out to walk the dog and never coming home. We should be enraged. Families are losing husbands, fathers and sons to scum, and the Left is channelling Marie Antoinette. As long as the Conservative Party is prepared to sign up to the happy-clappy Liberal consensus, whereby the slaughter of innocent people is just, y’know, one of those things, they deserve to be out of power. Why should people vote Conservative when all they offer is a legislative version of meet the new boss, same as the old boss ?

This is the essential lunacy of the modernisers position, they claim that Tony Blaire is a moderate, while the Conservative Party is extremist, yet just about every time a gap appears between the Conservatives and the Left, it turns out that the Tories are closer to what the public really believes. Consider the latest example of Liberal thought on education. Does anyone outside the Beardey-Weirdey Therapeutic Community of our educational system think this isn't insane ? This isn’t an aberration, this is who they are, this is what they really believe, and that’s the message Conservatives should be hammering home. But no – instead the Party is mired in dealing with alleged modernisers and their incessant suggestions that the Conservative Party really needs to stop beating its wife.

Anyone Got Alan Duncan's Number ?

I want to give him a call and see how his plans for a Gay-Islam axis are going ?

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

They're Like The Maquis Of The Kitchen

Uh oh! Looks like they didn't get the memo. There's Ken Livingstone claiming that it's all that Western intervention into Islamic countries that's got them all mad, when suddenly we hear about brave Jihadis striking a blow for freedom by attacking Imperialist teapots.

Y'know, a bloke could almost think the Islamopaths were just plain unsociable.

Dafydd Squeaks Speaks Out

Alan Duncan has quit the Conservative leadership race saying its "moralising wing" could condemn it to oblivion.
As opposed to Al, who represents the ‘no morals at all’ wing.

Mr Duncan, the only openly gay Tory MP, told the Times: "Our Achilles heel has been our social attitude. We should... allow people to live as they choose...
Yes, indeed. No more lynching of air stewards. No more making hairdressers sit at the back of the bus. No more ‘straights only’ housing estates.

But wait….that doesn’t happen.

If the 'Tory Taleban' can't get that they'll condemn us all to oblivion.
Let’s clear this up for Al: the Taliban buried homosexuals alive, the Tory Right just thinks we shouldn’t be spending public money on ‘Gay History Month’. This isn’t moral equivalence, this is moral imbecility.

Announcing his withdrawal to The Times, Mr Duncan said: "Censorious judgmentalism from the moralising wing, which treats half our countrymen as enemies, must be rooted out.
Quick – someone call the Irony Police. We have a complaint about moral judgementalism from someone who compares his opponents to a group of bloodthirsty totalitarian fanatics and calls for them to be ‘rooted out’.

It’s all very well Al claiming that morality is sooooo Twentieth Century, but it sure still seems to affect him. The mere thought that grandmothers in Hull don’t necessarily approve of promiscuous man sex sends him over the edge. This is what Al really means when he talks about allowing ‘people to live as they choose...’ – he means the exact opposite.

That’s the irony right there – propaganda to the contrary, the average Conservative in Huddersfield isn’t demanding his lifestyle be imposed on smug Metropolitan ponces like Al. On the contrary, it’s Al and his like who boil over with rage at the thought of people living alternative lifestyles. There’s no comparison between the (minimal) rhetoric of the Right on lifestyle issues and the kind of bulging-eyed hatred that emanates from Al when he thinks about people in Wales reading the Bible.

Of course, on those moments when Al talks on subjects above the waistline, it becomes all too obvious why he does it so rarely.

We should turn our indignation at poor education into a fundamental review that asks what we should teach and how we should teach it.
Hey – let’s reorganise again. That’ll do it. Of all the reasons offered for the high rates of illiteracy, probably the least compelling is that there are people who think we shouldn’t teach it. Or is that not what he meant ?

Then again, at least there’s an almost coherent thought there. What exactly does this mean ?

Why are we talking so little of foreign affairs and social cohesion at a time when it is shaming for us not to have a single Muslim MP?
See, that’s classic Al. His statement doesn’t actually make any sense, except in so far as it smears Tories as bigots. It’s technically true that there aren’t any Muslim MPs but he can’t hardly be unaware of Muslim influence on the Party. A Party where an official can say this without being fired is hardly too harsh on the Ummah.

This kind of slippery smear is worthy of the Guardian or the BBC, but it’s pretty much par for the course for Al. Indeed, there are members of the Cabinet who haven’t attacked the Conservative Party as often as Alan Duncan. His career has been one long sustained whine, yet what is his problem ? Everyone who opposes him is a bigot, yet why exactly would anyone want to support him ? What vision does he offer ? What contribution does he make ? Nada. Just a nasty, snarling, narcissistic, buffoon, endlessly demanding that people swoon over every vacuous statement. That’s the final irony right there: who’d have guessed that the Conservatives’ ‘only only openly gay MP’ would turn out to be such a perfect example of the stereotype whiny queen ?

Computer, destruct Sequence One, code one, one-A...

Right, that's it. Use plastique, bring up a 'Rachel', whatever - just get that that wreck off the road.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Beeb Bandwagon Hits Clue Tree, Reverses, Steers Round It

What to do if you're a Lib faced with an elephant in the room that's just too big to hide anymore ? Hire some maroon to claim that actually it's just a really big mouse.

UK multi-culturalism under spotlight

The radicalisation of some younger members of Britain's 1.5 million-strong Muslim community has led to often heated debate. Now questions are being asked about whether British-style multi-culturalism is succeeding or failing.

Well, dude, some of us have been saying that for years, while some publically-funded others have been calling us Nazis and using the most absurd arguments to bolster their position, sort of like saying that....

Muslims have lived in Britain for centuries, but only relatively recently have they become the focus of controversy.
And nothings changed since the 1580s has it, Mr BBC guy ? You know, like the introduction of THAT THING YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE WRITING ABOUT.

Three big crises over the last decade and a half have heightened tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims:

The Rushdie affair of the late 1980s

The attacks of 9/11 in the US, and their implications for Britain

And now, potentially most serious of all, this month's London bombings
They pose awkward challenges for British policy-makers.
And there you have it. Moslems want to kill an author, fly planes into buildings and blow up buses and the Beeb thinks it's a challenge for policy makers: we've got to meet them halfway, maybe let them fly airliners into just the one building.
The Rushdie affair was, in many ways, a turning-point.

Until then most Britons, especially in London and the prosperous south, had scarcely been aware of the new Muslim communities taking root in northern industrial towns like Leeds and Bradford.
Which says a lot about our 'national broadcaster'.

The public burning in Bradford of Salman Rushdie's novel The Satanic Verses was therefore a huge shock.

The affair showed up the yawning gulf between Muslims, who believed the novel slandered their faith and its prophet, and a liberal intelligentsia outraged at the idea of banning, let alone burning, a book.
Meanwhile, Conservative morons were perfectly happy with the idea that Waterstones should have to run their stock list past local representatives of the 7th century.

The Iranian death threat against Rushdie, which a few British Muslims supported, further polarised opinion.
Yes, there was little support for the death threat, although it seemed more widespread than it was becuase few Britons were aware that in Muslim culture burning some bloke in effigy while chanting 'Death to Bloke' is a traditional good luck wish.

The affair triggered the first serious debate about a community which was little known or understood.
And, by 'eck, the Beeb will try and keep it that way, for example by publishing garbage like this, five paragraphs down.

.....By the time of the Rushdie affair, they were starting to think of themselves as British Muslims rather than Muslim immigrants.
Which is utter garbage. Muslims have always maintained that they're 'citizens of the Ummah'. It's an essential part of Islam.

Or there's this lu-lu later on:

Many felt prejudice was directed at their religion as well as their skin colour.
Which, I'd guess, is the Beeb's way of trying to get round the awkward fact that in Nazi Britain, home of the most racistly racist people in the whole world, there's an awful lot of Hindu and Sikh millionaires. So it ain't having a penchant for curry and cricket that's holding back the Islamopaths. Must be some other factor.....

Still, don't trust the Beeb to diagnose the problem, when they can't even report the symptoms honestly:

The possibility that the London attacks were the work of young British Muslim suicide bombers poses a significant challenge to Muslim leaders and the Blair government.
Possibility ? I think we've pretty much narrowed it down to either Islamopaths or killer parrots - and we haven't found any feathers at the scence.

The bottom line is given away in the Beeb's moronic comment about Islamopaths facing prejudice directed at their religion. Say what ? Does the Beeb mean people judging other people on the views which make up their worldview ? Isn't that what the Beeb does evertime it calls those of us on the Right 'racists' ? For the sake of the BBC's absurd arguement, why should we be allowed to discriminate against people who hold a particular set of beliefs that can be classed as 'racist' but not those whose beliefs come under 'Islamic' - shouldn't we judge each philosophy on its merits ?

Maybe the BBC think Islam deserves special treatment becuase it claims supernatural underpinings. Ah no - maybe not, to judge by the treatment regularly accorded groups like Christian Voice. Indeed, there are few better exemplars of the practice of modern multiculturalism than the contrast between BBC coverage of CV (accused of making gays feel 'uncomfortable') and their coverage of Islamopaths (accused of making gays feel 'dead'). Now the BBC tries to cast itself as a honest reporter of the debates about multiculturalism. Who cares ? Whatever they want to call their policy, in Beebland the Brits are always the baddies.

Postcards From A Parallel Universe

Daniel writes from a nearby existance:

I say thank goodness for the bill outlawing rudeness about Nazism. Reports of Herr Hitler’s speeches threatening the destruction of our civilization are greatly exaggerated. Similarly, his threat to exterminate the Jewish race will be used by extremist groups here to stir up fears against our peace-loving Nazi friends. It is clear that these views are only held by a tiny minority of Nazis, and the tabloid frenzy surrounding Herr Hitler’s visit to London to address a Nazi rally entitled ‘Death to the Jews’ is all too predicable.

The bombing raids which have destroyed large areas of London, claimed by the Nazi-affiliated Luftwaffe, may be the work of a tiny minority of misguided Nazi zealots who do not represent the peaceful Nazi majority. More likely, the bombings have been orchestrated by the British / US secret services, in the service of a Jewish conspiracy. These attacks will only serve to strengthen our ties with our Nazi friends, and we welcome the new Bill which will outlaw criticism of Nazism.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

The Sofisticayted Left

So, Stephen Pollard - no provincial outsider - writes an article criticising the Beeb's MinTruth antics and Auntie's Peter Marshall responds with a brilliant comeback that demolishes once and for all the argument that forty years of near monopoly control of the institutions has atropied the average Liberal's ability to argue a point.

These People Are Literally Mad

The Acester passes on this surreal story from Le Asylum

Not Really Political

...but funny: take lines written by the World's Most Successful Bad Dialogue Writer, translate into Chinese then back into English, and see what happens.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Al Doh!

Talk about sawing off the branch you're sitting on. The Islamopaths have been pushing the Dhimmification Act Religious Hatred Bill like it was a gay on the edge of a cliff, but now they've suddenly had a revelation: if the Government tries to remove all material which could encourage hatred of other religions, wouldn't that leave the Koran about the same size as the instructions on a book of stamps ? Needless to say, our ever-dhimmi pols have been anxious to assure them that it'll be legal for them to quote from the Koran, but not anyone else.

It's all for the equality, you know.

We're Just Lucky Al Gore Invented The Internet

Is it just me, or are other folk getting mightily teed off with Her Majesty's Government's attempt at the media equivalent of the Dance of the Seven Veils ? It's a power surge - no, it's a bomb. Two people are dead - closer to a hundred. No evidence of a suicide bomber - except for a bushel of documents. Now, we're supposed to buy into the story that approximatly 15 seconds after the report of a bombing in t'other end of the country, family members of one splodeydope dialled up the Filth to see if he was involved, allowing the Police to immediatly identify the other three splodeydopes. A-huh. I'm convinced, I mean it's not like they've lied to us before.

So, where's the media on all this ? Our supposed watchdogs turn out to be pussy cats. Hey - these are the folks who scweamed and scweamed till they made themselves sick during Operation Iraq Freedom, just 'cause the commanders of spearhead battalions wouldn't make themselves available for interviews at 18:00 on the dot each day. Approximatly how many godawful TV dramas have there been featuring maverick journalists desperatly pursuing the truth against all odds ? Now when the Government keeps getting caught lying like a rug, the journalistic profession appears to have had a collective valium enema.

Yes, it's just possible that the journojismers have a weird psychological disorder that prevents them working out that someone who has previously screwed them over will probably keep on doing so - what psychologists call 'Conservative Party Member Syndrome'. More likely though, this is a result of a cancer at the heart of British jounalism. Say what you like about the old 'Fleet Street' crowd. They may have all been drunken slobs, but at least they knew they were drunken slobs. Now, we have a jounalistic profession - booze is banned, but delusions of granduar are de rigeur. These people went to the same universities as the politicians (either one), they live in the same parts of the same city and go to the same hang-outs. Is it any wonder that they start to see themselves not as watchdogs of the government, but as a part of it ? So, if an old friend from St Tosser's College phones up asking for you to report some BS story about power surges on buses ? Why, of course you'll report it, anything to help a mate out. It's only the Great Unwashed that are getting the shaft.

Setting The Bar Low

I just realised today what it was that was annoying me about the coverage of the London bombing. The Liberoids are pushing two lines about the bombing:
  • Islam is a Religion of Pecae
  • Muslims blow stuff up becuaswe they disapprove of the foreign policy of our democratically-elected government with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan and 'Palestine'.
So, there we have it: the official PC line - Muslims are peaceful, except if you do something they disagree with, in which case they'll kill you. Put that way, who the Hell isn't 'peaceful' ? Rapists, robbers and kidnappers could all get in that club - but enough about Mohammed. Deny dhimmification all you want, but name for me another group who would get fulsome praise for only murdering their opponents.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Davis Meltdown Continues

Having watched David Davis' performance since Thursday, I'm beginning to think we're witnessing the first ever case of Shellshock By Proxy. Take today's interview with Jeremy Vine. There were the obvious insanities, of course. Davis accepts the figure of 3000 British passport holders trained in Al-Quaida camps, but thinks there are only a few really dangerous people. Say what ? You mean 2950 of them were only there to take advantage of the spa facillities ? Even Jeremy Vine caught that one, and when he pressed Davis the thrashing about was truly Majoresque. Then there's the really weird constant refrences to the possibility of unduly harsh legisaltion acting as a 'recruiting seargent' for Al-Quaida. The Great One has already disposed of this insanity in another context:

Let's also pause to ponder the image of the middle-of-the-road, "centrist" Jihadist who could be "recruited" to Jihad by reports about abuse at Guantanamo. You know — the kind of guy who just watches al-Jazeera for the sports and hits the "mute" button whenever they start in about the Jews again, already.

Liberals want us to believe such a person exists and that he is perusing newspaper articles about Guantanamo trying to decide whether to finish his coffee and head off to work or to place a backpack filled with dynamite near a preschool.

Note to liberals: That doesn't happen.
Not only did Davis show a bizzare inability to understand what really motivates the enemy, he showed specific ignorance of the current state of the war, flatly denying that known terorists were being cut loose by the courts. By my reckoning, this makes Davis the only person in the country not to know about the malign influence of the Law Lords on the war effort. Indeed, it was almost to Davis' advantage that he spent so much of the interview thrashing about since whenever he was able to make a clear point, it was invariably wrong.

Yes, standard disclaimer applies. Davis does have to be afraid of scaring the horses, ditto this is hardly the time for full-on politics, but there are serious questions that have to be asked. Consider the question mark over the role of our 'Turn 'em Loose Bruce' judges. A large part of the reason why judges can cause so much damage is the way Nu Lab has outsourced responsibility for national defence to the twelve dwarves in the House of Lords. Conservatism means a strong defence of ancestoral rights, but the corollary to that is that, precisely because we believe that rights are basic, fundemental and inalienable, we oppose the type of mass production of rights that has been the halllmark of the Blair years.

To put it another way, there is no inconsistancy in opposing attempts to deprive the public of genuine rights, while questioning lunacies such as the Human Rights Act. But that isn't what Davis is saying. In fact, it's hard to tell precisely what his point is. This should be the real worry for the Conservative Party. Here's their next leader being asked about the most urgent topic of the age, and he sounds like he's still trying to work out which is Iraq and which Iran. Can we really trust this guy in office ?

Terrorist Day Trip

Looks like the Tangos may have been active in Birmingham. Idiots. If they'd attacked Liverpool they could at least have got a nice editorial in The Spectator.

BBC Finds Real Victims Of Terror Attacks

Yes, indeed. Even the Beeb will admit that yessss, being blown up can be kind of inconvenient, but that’s not the real horror. No, the worst thing is that Islamic terrorists committing mass murder (again) may damage the image of Islam.

Now, take a shot in the dark: what job do you think the first Muslim quoted does ? Yes, you guessed it, he’s a surgeon. They probably wanted a guy who runs a kitten hospital, but he was out of town. The next few paras are well-polished boilerplate, as the Beeb tries desperately not to make the contrast too obvious between the way the mildest criticism of the ‘slims by a public figure sends them into full Linda Blair mode, while mass murder results in issuance of Standard Statement Type 1.
Some extremist organisations have already started publishing material on
websites blaming Muslims, or at the very least their faith, for the London

‘Extremists’, oh my! So the BBC uses the same word to describe people who blow up people and the folks who report accurately on them.

The next para is solid gold.
It is this expected development that will now concern Muslim leaders trying their best to ensure their community are not blamed.
Ok, so some maniacs carry out mass murder and the ‘slims are concerned that they will be blamed. That’s what they’re worried about. Not the fact that their community is harbouring nutballs, not what it says about a culture when it breeds these kind of people. Certainly not what they can do to stop it happening again. Just that it might rebound on them. A-huh.

Still, there is blame on both sides. They commit mass murder, we…no, it’s too horrible, it’s…we send e-mails:
Dr Bari said the East London mosque has already received hate emails but he hadalso been heartened by seeing supportive correspondence.

Hey – if getting abusive e-mails is all you need, I’m putting in for Victimhood First Class with Sword, Oak Leaves and Gold Cluster.

In the East End two young British-born Muslim women said they were resigned to suffering fallout. "I'm just not bothered any more," said one. "Whenever something like this happens, I know we're going to get targeted. Last time [Madrid train bombings] I got pointed at in the street."

There’s a Pythonesque aspect to much of the BBC’s reporting, but this is beyond parody. Note too though the same order of priorities: mass slaughter in Madrid, but let’s talk about the Great Islamic Pointing atrocity of 2004. There are supermodels less obsessed than this.

But here’s the kicker:

Many leaders fear they will face a more difficult job in protecting people if rumour and speculation about who was behind the attack makes it into the

That’s the BBC: the news organisation that doesn’t want to report the news.

This Is (Still) War

By and large, as far as the bombs go, I’ve been keeping to the rule that if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything, but I notice that the Left isn’t so much stealing bases as making off with the whole stadium.

Even the normally sane Tim Worstall bags NRO for making a mild comment about the bombing while maintaining radio silence about Ken Livingstone’s absurd speech. After all, here was the mayor of a city that had just suffered a horrendous attack and he injects an ludicrous element of class war into it. Leaving aside matters of taste, it’s absurd to say only the horny-handed sons of toil use public transport in London – in fact, given that folks travelling at at that time of day are usually on their way to some form of job, that excludes most of Livingstone’s core support right there.

More to the point though, the phrase ‘closing down the debate’ barely covers what Livingstone was trying to do with respect to the question of the role the combination of mass immigration and multiculturalism played in these events. Then again, the Stupid maximus virus was particularly contagious that day: even David Davis, alleged Conservative hard man gave a Lennonesque speech urging unity. Dave, here’s a free clue, these folks aren’t after communal singing and group hugs.

So, y’know, I feel justified in speaking out on this issue, I feel something needs saying, and that something is WTF ?

We don’t need vigils or brightly coloured ribbons, or the rest of the therapy nation garbage. What happened wasn’t a ‘tragedy’. A tragedy is where a river sweeps away a viaduct with a train on it, not where some scumbag blows the bridge up. All this talk of ‘national healing’ isn't being used as a stimulus to action, it’s being used as an alternative, a displacement activity.

What happened is this: a group of maniacs attacked our country. That’s it. I realise this may be disappointing for certain of our bien pensants. It’s all so crude , so blatant, so lacking in nuance. I dunno. Maybe next war we’ll be attacked by the philosophy department at the Sorbonne. Right about now we’re at war with an enemy whose objectives is crystal clear – hey, they’ll even translate it into English for us.

Wassat ? I hear a squaking from the Left side of the spectrum, something about ‘legitimate greivances’: Bosnia, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Anyotherstan….Yes, indeed. Not only that – how about the West’s intervention in East Timor and Al Andalus. How about it Libs - both are regularly cited by the enemy. If Islam has grievances, it is the grievance of the aristocrat considering the self-made millionaire or, more appropriately for Islam, the slave owner facing the loss of his slaves.

But no, the L3 won’t have it. These folks resisted every attempt to defend our island against the baddies on the grounds that the threat was a myth, and insisted that such measures as we did take were castrated by the demands of political correctness. Even now, they’re determined to make sure that this isn’t Britain’s September 11, more Britain’s Khobar Towers. Well, we have seen how well their theories work: four bombs detonated, two failed to explode, none stopped by law enforcement. I don’t feel that it’s presumptuous to request that we get a turn. Maybe those of us on the Right aren’t as sensitive as the Left, maybe we’re not as subtle. The Highland Clearances weren’t too subtle either, but you notice how many times England has been invaded by maniacs in skirts since ? To steal the final line from Ann Coulter's famous September 12 column: that was war, so is this.

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Free Phucket From Zionist Occupation

As regular watchers of the BBC will know, the GWOT is in fact a myth created by racist Whites to try and cast as evil the perfectly justified reaction of oppressed members of the Third World Community to the evils of Western countries, such as Thailand.

Who knows ? Maybe this is a reaction to the imperialist legacy of the Siamese Empire - I mean, their cats are everywhere. Or possibly there's some other reason, some common factor which links these acts of violence. The Beeb isn't sure though:

More than 700 people, including at least 24 teachers, have been killed since January 2004 in unrest which the government blames on Islamic militants.
....'cause you know like it could be a race of super-intelligent monkeys. Or maybe militant Moromons. Or possibly mass suicides.

The next line speaks so eloquently to the nature of Islam that even the Beeb can't find a way to sugarcoat it:

Teachers are often targeted as they are seen as symbols of Thailand's Buddhist authorities.
Trouble is that the Thais have been a free and independent people since about the time our ancestors were busy trying to work out what colour the wheel should be. Eurabia this ain't.

"We have granted special rights for teachers to carry guns," deputy education minister Rung Kaewdaeng told reporters on Tuesday, adding that 2,000 teachers had already requested arms.

"They need guns. This is now a necessity as many people have survived attacks because they shot back at the attackers," Mr Rung is quoted as saying by the French news agency AFP.
No, no, no! The real answer is ID cards. Set the Bangkok PD to rousting old ladies who've forgotten their cards and all will be well again.

Of course, the real question is the reaction of the Islamopaths. As I see it, it could go one of three ways:

a) The Islamopaths could continue their attacks, accepting heavy casaulties as the price.

b) The Islamopaths could stop their attacks

c) The Islamopaths could continue their attacks, get regular panellings at the hands of just about every Thai they attack, and so become a Designated Liberal Victim Group.

Face it - all history says that it's going to be option c. After all, 300 million Arabs have spent fifty years explaining exactly how they plan to brutally slaughter 4 million Jews, yet all we ever hear about is the great imbalance between Israel and its neighbours. No doubt, Amnesia Intentional is already assembling a strike team to jet in to Bangkok and denounce the ruthless slaughter of Islamic hunting enthusistas who'd accidentally trespassed onto school property while chasing dodos. The ISM tools are probably inbound too, complete with BBC documentary crew and Alan Rickman, slobbering over the thought of producing another emetic script about the life of the next one to head the bullet.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Feminists 4 Rape

PC DC, who must be a glutton for punishment, has just confirmed what common sense would lead most people to believe anyway, namely that the current ‘all rape charges are real’ lunacy leads the Police to carry out the full court press even when the charges are self-evidently absurd. Needless to say, the femiloons and their supporting eunuchs are already pitching up in his comments ready to carry out a digital lynching. Me – I think they doth profess too much.

It’s a myth that the femiloons are against rape. Nope – they love it. It’s the perfect wedge issue, a great stick to beat men and masculinity with, while helping to bring the ‘sisters’ into the AMAB fold. Hence the disparity between the hate directed at folks like DC who point out the insanity of the present system, and the deafening silence which greets news like this.

Here we have a Code One, 100% proof rapist and the courts do all but pile up the relevant legislation and take a dump on it. If it was possible to moon the entire British public, this is what the court has done. Life, meaning 4.5 years ? What is this we’re talking ? Hamster lives ?

Just to ram home what a short time this is, consider the fact that if Blair decides to take the full term, this scumbag will be out in time for the next election. He’ll miss the next footy World Cup, but he’ll be back on the streets in time for the one after. Hang on…I hear a strange whining sound from out Left. Ah yes – the scumbag will only be released when doctors consider him no longer a danger. And these people have got such a great record. After all, what could go wrong with a system where people who get paid shedloads of cash to rehabilitate scumbags get to assess whether scumbags have actually been rehabilitated ? Hey, anybody know why a junior A & E doctor who screws up in the sixty-fifth hour of a seventy-two hour shift can be sued but these weenies can’t ? And what conclusions can we draw from that fact ? And why is it that Liberals are all in favour of independent tribunals and accountability except anywhere where they’re actually needed ?

Enough questions already. The femiloons claim they want to reduce the number of rapes – here’s an easy way. Here we have a proven rapist and the government wants to release him at the age of twenty. This is not a tough call. WARNING! WARNING! THIS INDIVIDUAL WILL STRIKE AGAIN. Hell – the courts are agonising over whether we should even find out the name of this scumbag. And where are the femiloons ? Where indeed.

Saturday, July 02, 2005

Who Needs Tom Cruise ?

Don't make do with any Hollywood garbage. Here's the real War of the Worlds.

Do you mind Phillips? We’re a little busy here, we’re still trying to round up the remaining Martians before they zap any more odeons with their death rays.

So you’re saying you are now deliberately profiling Martians?

Is It His Name Or What He Drinks Before A Show ?

While the Mothership was in space dock, Lembit Optik (Lib Dem, Venus) popped into the Beeb and took the opportunity to help Johnnie Walker set a new standard for non-confrontational interviewing. All I’ll say about Cadet Optik’s performance is to note that at one point he accused the US of ‘environmental terrorism’ – is that like flying an airliner into Lake Windemere ? We never found out – this, and many other pearlers, was spewed forth by Cadet Optik with nary a challenge from JW. Come to think of it, this non-interview was almost a textbook example of what’s wrong with the Beeb. There’s the trainwreck view of economics:

Is it too simplistic, or is it true to say that a proportion of the wealth of the West is dependent on these [Third World] countries remaining poor ? How could you persuade a French farmer to give up his subsidies ?
How about option C: neither true nor simplistic, just moronic. Far be it from me to complain about people bashing either the French or the CAP, but what’s with this ? It’s the pizza box back again – the belief that if have too many slices some dude in Africa is going to be left munching cardboard. The idea that Africa might be poor because it doesn’t generate enough wealth never even enters these people’s heads. Nope – it's The Man making off with their rightful slices.

Then there’s the strange view of the constitution:

Up to 2 Million people marched to prevent war against Iraq and it made not a jot of difference, politicians took no notice whatsoever.
I’ll let this idiocy speak for itself, as I’m enjoying my new found genius status as befits a bloke with an IQ of ‘up to’ 350.

How do we make it that we have votes that actually mean something ? In other words, proportional representation, which should mean more parties will have to work together ?
Never mind the bias, or the rather quaint view of PR, why exactly would we want these weasels to work together ? They already do that once a year when it’s pay review time: say no more. Personally, I’d rather they stay as they are now, like rats in a sack, rather than give us 365 days of the year with them demonstrating the kind of broad vision and commitment to public service that they demonstrate on pay day.

Now, no one’s saying the BBC shouldn’t give air time to the fruiter ends of the spectrum, or that interviews necessarily have to be confrontational, or even that there isn’t a place for the opinionated presenter, except that these are all things that, in other contexts, the BBC has strongly come out against (see here for example).That’s the bias – that there are different rules for Libs as compared with those on the right.

The Liberals Have Got It Right

I’ve had changed my mind about the whole live8 boondoggle: I’m convinced, let’s give them what they want. The L3 have always argued that Britain has a responsibility to the hell holes of the world because of a litany of sins including, but not limited to, AIDS, slavery, colonialism and the Cold War. OK, you win Libs: we’ll stump up the cash.

Obviously, precise figures may vary, but I reckon £250 billion should see us straight. Now, that’s a lot of cash, but it’s not like we aren’t massively in hock anyway. At least this time it’ll be an investment. Yes, indeed – after all, once we’ve paid our debt to global society, why, we should be free to get on with our lives. It’s only fair. Or to put it another way, there’s going to be some changes round here.

Overseas aid will go, obviously, plus there’ll be no more asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants caught before lunch will be on the plane at tea time. All those ‘Somali Community Centres’ and the like will go together with the Commission for Racial Equality (after all, the Race Relations Act won’t be around to need enforcing). Our elephantine charidee sector will have to pay for their stupid campaigns sans taxbreaks. Needless to say, hundreds of thousands of race awareness officers and the like will be exploring our nation’s many excellent job centres and their fine range of monolingual literature. After all, if you want anything from the British taxpayer, you can damn well learn to speaka da language. On your own dime. Meanwhile, our schools will be encouraged to cover the whole range of cultures: English, Scottish, Ulster and Welsh.

Come to think of it, £250 bn sounds cheap.